[omegaword]

I don't like Stalin, I don't like his politics, and I hate what he did to the revolution. But I can't hate him for it, because for all his misdeeds, they only reason the nazis lost ww2 was because of his policies of forced industrialization which ultimately gave the soviets the military strength to go to Berlin. Do not misinterpret this: Stalin had no idea what would happen when he was begining the program, but I think we should all just remember, if his policies had not been in effect, the nazis would have just subdued Russia, and used its oil and crops to bolster the wermachet. So Stalin, thank you, you monster.

[Potemkin]

Stalin had no idea what would happen when he was begining the program

Actually, Stalin knew precisely what would happen when he was beginning his program. In 1931, Stalin made a speech in which he stated: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us." Ten years later, almost to the day, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.

[mikema63]

Why do you like Stalin Potemkin?

[Potemkin]

I don't 'like' Stalin; I admire him. He was a hard-headed realist, and he knew how to get things done. He was a highly competent statesman, who effectively saved the world from Hitler and his cronies. What is there not to admire in that?

[mikema63]

The other stuff mostly.

[Potemkin]

None of Stalin's achievements would have been possible without that 'other stuff', unfortunately.

[Rei Murasame]

I can't wait to see the mainstream American reactions to this thread.

[mikema63]

What are you expecting?

[Decky]

None of Stalin's achievements would have been possible without that 'other stuff', unfortunately.

Indeed, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

Or in Stalin's own words "when a forest is chopped woodchips fly."

Does any one really give that much of a damn about a few woodchips?

[Potemkin]

Does any one really give that much of a damn about a few woodchips?

"Who's going to remember these riffraff in twenty years time?" - Joseph Stalin

[Conscript]

I don't 'like' Stalin; I admire him. He was a hard-headed realist, and he knew how to get things done. He was a highly competent statesman, who effectively saved the world from Hitler and his cronies. What is there not to admire in that?

He was not a realist, he was an opportunist. I guess that is unless you define realism as adopting a political faction's ideas then killing/purging the people behind them.

Stalin was not interested in 'saving the world', he was however interested in letting imperialists fight each other and helping supply them, too.

Besides, he opened up the way for the nazis when he paralyzed the KPD and the working class by focusing on 'social-fascists'. The comintern-led party even supported for a nazi sponsored referendum to eject the social democrats.

[Smilin' Dave]

None of Stalin's achievements would have been possible without that 'other stuff', unfortunately.

I don't entirely agree. The great purges for example didn't serve any practical purpose and likely had a negative economic impact, particularly the relatively low level 'initiatives' inspired (even demanded) by the centre that ended up targetting imagined conspiracies in specific industries/sectors. I also don't think it a stretch to say the military purge went too far. What utility was served by torturing and imprisoning generals like Rokossovsky, only for Stalin to have to release them during the war for a lack of qualified commanders? Even if you take the approach that the purge of the military cleared out 'dead wood' who were hopelessly out of date the question has to be asked why they needed to be arrested etc.

[Potemkin]

I don't entirely agree. The great purges for example didn't serve any practical purpose and likely had a negative economic impact, particularly the relatively low level 'initiatives' inspired (even demanded) by the centre that ended up targetting imagined conspiracies in specific industries/sectors.

It is of course true that the purges had a negative short-term economic impact (and the failed collectivisation of agriculture had a negative long-term impact on Soviet agriculture). However, the breakneck pace of Soviet industrialisation required political unanimity in Soviet society - the factionalism of the Soviet leadership of the 1920s and early 1930s threatened the viability of the Soviet state itself. The purges achieved this unanimity, albeit rather brutally and inefficiently.

I also don't think it a stretch to say the military purge went too far. What utility was served by torturing and imprisoning generals like Rokossovsky, only for Stalin to have to release them during the war for a lack of qualified commanders? Even if you take the approach that the purge of the military cleared out 'dead wood' who were hopelessly out of date the question has to be asked why they needed to be arrested etc.

Would these dismissed military commanders have quietly retired to their dachas and devoted themselves to growing prize-winning roses in their gardens? Many of these generals (eg, Tukhachevsky) knew important Soviet state secrets and had developed close connections with German Wehrmacht commanders in the 1920s, and many of them were former Tsarist military officers who had fought against the Bolsheviks in the Civil War before switching sides. They could not be trusted.

[Smilin' Dave]

However, the breakneck pace of Soviet industrialisation required political unanimity in Soviet society - the factionalism of the Soviet leadership of the 1920s and early 1930s threatened the viability of the Soviet state itself. The purges achieved this unanimity, albeit rather brutally and inefficiently.

1. It hasn't been demonstrated that any factional strife the might have continued into the 1930s was any threat to the Soviet party-state.
2. It hasn't been demonstrated that a blood purge was the best solution to this supposed problem. If there were other solutions available (expulsion from the party etc.) then the argument that Stalin's brutality was always necessary falls apart.

Would these dismissed military commanders have quietly retired to their dachas and devoted themselves to growing prize-winning roses in their gardens? Many of these generals (eg, Tukhachevsky) knew important Soviet state secrets and had developed close connections with German Wehrmacht commanders in the 1920s, and many of them were former Tsarist military officers who had fought against the Bolsheviks in the Civil War before switching sides. They could not be trusted.

1. They had no means to do anything. It's not like they could raise a militia or something.
2. Internal exile had been quite effective in previous 'cases' and even in the case of Khrushchev shows it continued to work fairly well after the purges.
3. I've still yet to see strong evidence that the officers really were planning to overthrow the government or similar. All the aspersions about former Tsarist officers, links with the Germans etc. don't really count for much if the primary purpose of the purge was just to make room for younger/better officers.

[Potemkin]

The opposite of your points have also never been demonstrated. The truth is, we will probably never know if Stalin's purges were necessary or not. And 'necessary' according to what criteria? From whose point of view? I simply see little point in debating this. Stalin's purges happened, and they had certain effects. We do know, however, that after the purges Stalin's Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany in total war; something which almost no-one expected at the time.

[Decky]

The opposite of your points have also never been demonstrated. The truth is, we will probably never know if Stalin's purges were necessary or not. And 'necessary' according to what criteria? From whose point of view? I simply see little point in debating this. Stalin's purges happened, and they had certain effects. We do know, however, that after the purges Stalin's Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany in total war; something which almost no-one expected at the time.

Comon Pote that's a little lazy from you.

Mot even a mention of Vlasov?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vlasov

Without the purges there would have been a lot more of this maybe even leading to a defeat for the Soviets (and thus for all humanity apart from ethnic Germans).

[Xbow]

I can't wait to see the mainstream American reactions to this thread.

Am I mainstream Rei? No matter....

I for one do like Uncle Joe...within the context of WW-2 that is. The Soviet Contribution to to the defeat of 'Little Fritz' can not be understated. Their massive successful contribution to the demise of the invading Krauts was made possible by Joe Stalin's Industrial, Scientific and Engineering drive. By the time Little Fritz decided to invade the Soviet Union Stalin had made it an industrial and technological giant second only in capacity to the United States. There were certainly some holes in the Russian technological base and in their level of education but the Russians were clever enough to get around those with the application of common sense, solid engineering aimed at ease of manufacture & operation, ruggedness and simplicity combined with a set of military doctrines based on the realities of enemy capability and their own capability. In that respect the Soviets and Stalin were brilliant.

Examples:
Early in the war the Soviets understood that a precision built bolt action rifle with sights graduated to 1200 yards was an expensive option and one that required considerable time and resources to train huge numbers of troops on. The Mosin–Nagant of which they made 37,000,000 was a good weapon but one that only a small percentage of their infantrymen could use to its maximum potential and as with all bolt guns was cursed with a slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity.

The soviets realized sooner than anyone else that 90% of infantry combat takes place at close range (<=200 meters) where full power cartridges like their 7.62mm X 54R were over powered and the bolt action rifles that fired such heavy hitters had a low rate of fire. Soviet doctrine demanded that in meeting engagements their troops should be able to establish direct fire superiority quickly and then maneuver under the cover of that high volume of fire. Of course the Germans wanted the same capability but were too slow to implement the changes required in time.

The German Solution:
Was to place light belt fed machine guns with high rates of fire such as the MG-34 with its ~900 round/min rate of fire with infantry platoons. Thus the German squad armed predominantly with bolt action rifles was centered around its base of fire the MG34.
The Soviet Solution (s):

•On one level the Soviets adopted the same solution with the 7.62mm X 54R DP-28 drum fed light machine gun acting as the base of fire and the rest of the unit armed with bolt action rifles.

•Another Soviet solution was the creation of SMG battalions where the predominant weapon was the easy to manufacture PPSh-41 sub machine gun (1000 rounds/min) that was supported by DP-28 LMG and designated marksmen armed with either Mosin–Nagant bolt guns or SVT-40 semi automatic rifles. These units could send clouds of lead at German troops while in the attack at a dead run.

Imagine 20 Germans with 1 MG-34, 4 MP-40s and 15 bolt action rifles facing 20 Soviets with 2 DP-28s, 6 SVT-40s and 12 PPSh-41s. The German unit is over matched with respect to the volume of fire it can deliver. And it take less time and effort to train a sub machine gunner than an effective rifleman.
[youtube]Lq63GlFiCKE[/youtube]
PPSh-41 rate of fire Demonstration.
And then the Germans were consistently surprised and unprepared for the huge numbers of powerful tanks and assault guns the Soviets were able to throw at them. This is one Soviet Assault-Gun/Tank Destroyer the SU-152 that made little Fritz look like little-bo-peep when it was introduced at the battle of Kursk.
[youtube]xHgIb69VCoU[/youtube]
Is this a valid statement, "What we should remember about Stalin: he's why we won ww2?" No but there is no doubt that he had a significant role in grinding the Wehrmacht into a bloody pulp. The day stupid Little Fritz put his nasty little hoofs on Soviet soil was the day the outcome of the war was assured.

A more valid reason for the crushing Allied victory over Germany and its complete subjugation is the idiocy of Adolph Hitler and his spineless general staff of ass kissing Prussians and unqualified SS puppets.

[Smilin' Dave]

The opposite of your points have also never been demonstrated.

...you're expecting evidence that there wasn't a real conspiracy against Stalin? I would say if there were real evidence, it would have been produced at the time. Or found (or otherwise indicated) when the archives started to open up with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead we're left with the dubious evidence of show trials.

Stalin's purges happened, and they had certain effects.

No question. But there is a difference between 'what happened, happened' or 'given this is Stalin we're talking about, it was pretty well inevitable' and saying that it was all totally necessary and Stalin was great for having done what was necessary to win.

Mot even a mention of Vlasov?

Vlasov defected in 1941 when his army was surrounded and most likely out of opportunism, fear of what would be done to him if he went back or resentment at being sent on what was essentially a death ride in the first place. This is a far cry from the supposed conspiracy that I supposed to be convinced existed in the 1930s.

And if you want to use Vlasov as your example, then it just proves the purges didn't 'work' - there were still nascent traitors like Vlasov around, right?

Let's return to the example of Rokossovksy
- Accused of being a Polish spy
- Arguably avoided being executed because he showed that the person who was supposed to have denounced him died in 1920
- Was released without explanation in 1940. They didn't 'test' him to see if he was now loyal or anything, it seems they just released locking him up was foolish.

Without the purges there would have been a lot more of this

Pure supposition. Next you'll tell me that the proof that the purges worked was the lack of a coup in the 1930s. Much as I have this rock that repells snakes...

[AuContraireVoltaire]

I don't entirely agree. The great purges for example didn't serve any practical purpose and likely had a negative economic impact, particularly the relatively low level 'initiatives' inspired (even demanded) by the centre that ended up targetting imagined conspiracies in specific industries/sectors. I also don't think it a stretch to say the military purge went too far. What utility was served by torturing and imprisoning generals like Rokossovsky, only for Stalin to have to release them during the war for a lack of qualified commanders? Even if you take the approach that the purge of the military cleared out 'dead wood' who were hopelessly out of date the question has to be asked why they needed to be arrested etc.

Tuhkachevsky was hardly 'dead wood' and Kliment Voroshilov was spared and even promoted during the purges despite his complete incompetence and lack of foresight. I find it intensely ironic that the KV tank was a product of the modernisation of the military that Tuhkachevsky advocated and was eventually executed over, but yet the tanks were named after the most reactionary and backward general.

So to say that the purges were about cutting out the dead weight and updating the officer staff is ludicrous.

[Andropov]

29% of Soviet military personnel had a higher education before the repressions. After them, the number became 38%. By 1941, the number had risen to 52%. Note that for the decade before the repressions, the number had remained stagnant at around 20-30%.

http://cas1961.livejournal.com/1204240.html